Have any of you shot with the old Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D? If so, how does it compare to whatever you use now?

I've never owned a dedicated macro lens (just using tubes mostly on 50mm f/1.8 or a 105mm f/2.5), but I am considering splashing out on one. I'm just having trouble justifying the cost of the newer 105mmVR or the Sigma 150mm.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, along with sample shots if at all possible.

I swapped from my long-term Canon system to Nikon about 4 years ago but I was using an adapted Canon FD200/4 Macro (which is very sharp) on my Nikons, until I bought a used Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8D lens. It too is very sharp, but others decided to keep it even after the new VR version was produced, so you may want to check those opinions/results. I used my 'D' for weddings (rings, shoes, cropped head, hand and dress details) but I didn't like the fussy background, so I tried a used older 105mm/4 AIs with it's PN-11 which I prefer, which is an opinion rather than a test. There's also been a bit of discussion on DPReview about the PC-Micro 85mm/2.8D and the newer PC-E version, but there's a couple of issues with size, weight and money but I had used a Canon TS-E 90/2.8 for my macro lens for a fair while! Over to you. Cheers,

Gary.

p.s I suggest and try your reversed 50/1.8 on your 105/2.5, using a double 52mm male-male filter thread adapter. It's cheap and interesting, as long as the magnification works for you.

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond. My reference to opinions and thoughts of others is somewhat limited in this forum, but I have 'Googled' and consequently decided to 'just do it' and ordered a second hand AF-D lens off Ebay at a good price. I'm still to receive it, so no testing just yet.

I don't imagine the poor bokeh becoming a problem as the intended use would be primarily very close up work. If it does become an issue, then I may consider reverting to 'plan b' and trying out the 90/2.8 Tamron which is highly praised in every review I've read and can also be had brand new for a good price.

I've actually tried both the 50/1.8 and the 28/2.8 reversed onto the 105/2.5. I got severe vignetting with the 28mm that I managed to get rid of with a couple of extension tubes, but the DOF was so crazy thin, I couldn't really get anything usable hand-held. The 50mm yielded much better results and I did manage to get some decent shots although nothing I would post here as they were just quick and dirty test shots.

I am looking forward to trying out my new purchase and thank you once again for taking the time to respond.

I'm shooting with an old, converted-to-AI 105/F4 and a PN1 tube I posted a sample in the tube thread yesterday. I find the lens to be perfectly sharp on my D7000. I also like the feel of the lens; everything about it is "crisp" and just feels precise, whether it be changing aperture or manual focus.

I think it really depends on what you want to photograph Ken. If you want to go after critters then long glass is a mistake -getting as close as possible actually makes it easier to get good diffusion from your flash, and to take control of the motion in the scene (Left Hand Brace Technique). If you want to shoot closeups of dragonflies and butterflies then that 105mm lens might not be long enough (you'd be better off with a 300mm non macro prime lens).